The fringe is making mainstream rulings and legislation - America is crumbling from within

[Indeependent]

Get back to me when the popular vote makes a happy damn when it comes to who is president.

That isn’t the context of the post.

 

[blackhawk]

We have the old saying the only constants in life are death and taxes it is time to add one more to that list the reaction of blind partisans when they don't get their way. FYI blind partisan means those from both sides.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Get back to me when the popular vote makes a happy damn when it comes to who is president.

The point is that you think he feared an inevitable loss but he increased his vote total from previous victory. That makes no sense.

 

[Winston]

The point is that you think he feared an inevitable loss but he increased his vote total from previous victory. That makes no sense.

As I tried to point out, one has nothing to do with the other. Do you think there is a set level of voters for each presidential election? Yes, he increased his total vote count, but damn, the total number of voters increased as well. He basically split the over 65 vote, a demographic Republicans depend upon. He lost big with young voters, who turned out at historical levels, and the big one, suburban women.

 

[Chillicothe]

Look schmuck, try reading the news every day.
I don't save Links for inveterate assholes such as yourself.

"Schmuck"? "Asshole"?
Gee, poster Indeependent it was not my avatar's intention to discombobulate you.
We'd advise: Toughen up, Skippy. It's hot in the kitchen....and if you can't stand it....well......

Here's the deal poster Indeependent, you asserted this: "I was watching and every judge refused to look at the evidence......." ( underlining added for emphasis)

YOU asserted it. Not my avatar.
And then when you are asked to vet your assertion you pout. You go all ad hominem. The crass and vulgar epithet-thingy.

C'mon man, this is Adult Swim. At least try to tread water.
The forum is expecting you to be a better you.

Good luck.

 

[Indeependent]

"Schmuck"? "Asshole"?
Gee, poster Indeependent it was not my avatar's intention to discombobulate you.
We'd advise: Toughen up, Skippy. It's hot in the kitchen....and if you can't stand it....well......

Here's the deal poster Indeependent, you asserted this: "I was watching and every judge refused to look at the evidence......." ( underlining added for emphasis)

YOU asserted it. Not my avatar.
And then when you are asked to vet your assertion you pout. You go all ad hominem. The crass and vulgar epithet-thingy.

C'mon man, this is Adult Swim. At least try to tread water.
The forum is expecting you to be a better you.

Good luck.

Translation…
You only read what you hunt and peck for.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As I tried to point out, one has nothing to do with the other. Do you think there is a set level of voters for each presidential election? Yes, he increased his total vote count, but damn, the total number of voters increased as well. He basically split the over 65 vote, a demographic Republicans depend upon. He lost big with young voters, who turned out at historical levels, and the big one, suburban women.

He only thing that turned out en masse were unaccountable absentee ballots. You don’t increase on a winning tally and expect to lose.
Democrats are so dishonest.

 

[Chillicothe]

Translation…You only read what you hunt and peck for.

It appears that good poster Indeependent is unable or unwilling to offer the forum vetting on his assertion that none of the 111 judges who sat in judgement of Don Trump's court action in his Election Denier scheme looked at the 'evidence' presented by Trump.

Indeependent asserted: "I was watching and every judge refused to look at the evidence ....." (emphasis added)

This is Adult Swim poster Indeependent. Either show what you have to persuade us. Or leave.

Not my rules. It is the way the adult world works. I think you know that already.

 

[Chillicothe]

From post #52:

"Do this poster Indeependent: Watch the included link below, ....or.....go to the compiled videos of the Select Committee's hearings and watch the whole enchilada of Benjamin Ginsberg's testimony (under oath) about those 60+ court cases presented to about 111 judges.

 

[Indeependent]

It appears that good poster Indeependent is unable or unwilling to offer the forum vetting on his assertion that none of the 111 judges who sat in judgement of Don Trump's court action in his Election Denier scheme looked at the 'evidence' presented by Trump.

Indeependent asserted: "I was watching and every judge refused to look at the evidence ....." (emphasis added)

This is Adult Swim poster Indeependent. Either show what you have to persuade us. Or leave.

Not my rules. It is the way the adult world works. I think you know that already.

Your ad hominems do not cover up the fact that you don't keep up with the news on a daily basis.
We all know that you and your fellow LibTards Google "Trump" all day and love to post lots of supposedly anti-Trump nonsense months after something happened and then you ask us to prove our point.
The fact is that you have zero integrity when it come to details or context.

 

[Chillicothe]

The fact is that you have zero integrity when it come to details or context.

So, you continue to be unwilling or unable to prove your assertion that none of the approximately 111 judges Don Trump presented his Election Denier pleadings to.... looked at any evidence.

OK, you be you, poster Indeependent.

But, and I mean no disrespect, but.......but folks who make assertions and then refuse to offer any support for them are often....well, generally always....looked upon as unserious frivolous men. (I suppose that applies to women to.)

 

[Indeependent]

So, you continue to be unwilling or unable to prove your assertion that none of the approximately 111 judges Don Trump presented his Election Denier pleadings to.... looked at any evidence.

OK, you be you, poster Indeependent.

But, and I mean no disrespect, but.......but folks who make assertions and then refuse to offer any support for them are often....well, generally always....looked upon as unserious frivolous men. (I suppose that applies to women to.)

I get it...you think your big font makes up for your low IQ...it doesn't.
The fact that you don't follow Reuters, AP News and BBC on a daily basis is your problem, not mine.

 

[Chillicothe]

The fact that you don't follow Reuters, AP News and BBC on a daily basis is your problem, not mine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Golly, poster Indeependent, this is getting worn a tad thin.

Whether I do or do not follow Reuters or the BBC or any media irrelevant to your assertion that none of the approximately 111 judges that Trump made Election Denier pleadings to.....even looked at any evidence.

You asserted that.
I did not.

You have been asked for vetting on your assertion.
You have, to date, been unwilling or unable to back up your own word.

That's on you poster Indeependent. Not on me. Not on any other poster on this venue.

Don't be an unserious man, a frivolous man. Be a stand-up guy. Make your word --as an adult man---a word to be relied upon. Trustworthy and dependable.

There is still time.

 

[Indeependent]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Golly, poster Indeependent, this is getting worn a tad thin.

Whether I do or do not follow Reuters or the BBC or any media irrelevant to your assertion that none of the approximately 111 judges that Trump made Election Denier pleadings to.....even looked at any evidence.

You asserted that.
I did not.

You have been asked for vetting on your assertion.
You have, to date, been unwilling or unable to back up your own word.

That's on you poster Indeependent. Not on me. Not on any other poster on this venue.

Don't be an unserious man, a frivolous man. Be a stand-up guy. Make your word --as an adult man---a word to be relied upon. Trustworthy and dependable.

There is still time.

Why don't you prove that those 111 judges examined the evidence?
You do know the difference between telling someone to go to hell and actually spending time examining evidence.
"Hi Judge, here's evidence. Let's take a few days to examine the evidence"...Prove the judge took a few days to examine the evidence.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Why don't you prove that those 111 judges examined the evidence?"

Good morning, poster Indeependent.

If you will not or cannot back up your own assertion then there is little reason for you and the forum to continue this discussion.

We do not need to prove what those 111 judges did or did not do.
You...are the one who inserted your assertion into this thread.
The burden of proof is on you.
Your competition is not forum members.....it is Benjamin Ginsberg. He is credibly informing that you do not know what you are talking about.


So, cowboy up and show the forum your cards.
Your hand has been called.

In my humble opinion: Your mouth got away from your brain. No disrespect intended. But, you said something that was easily fact checked. Once made aware of your faux pas you obfuscate, cover up, re-direct.
But, mein freund, as mentioned above:

• Your hand has been called.
• Show.
• Or go.

Your choice.

Who is Ben Ginsberg and why is he testifying in the Jan. 6 hearings?

Ben Ginsberg, a conservative elections lawyer best known for his involvement in the 2000 recount of the presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, will testify June 13 before the House Jan. 6 committee.

www.pbs.org

 

[jknowgood]

The far right is now the middle of the Republican Party with some powerful impacts to this country. There are some seriously crazy actions happening in Red power circles in America that affects us all. Welcome to the new world order.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court questions the legitimacy of Biden's 2020 win there, and compares the US voting system to those of Cuba and North Korea



Oklahoma Governor calls for special audit of the Tulsa school system via video announcement because they "might" be teaching critical race theory. Tulsa? hmmmmm



NC House Bill includes language to destroy EV Charging stations unless there are adjacent free gas and diesel pumps

Yes, the Democrats cheated in the 2020 election. Liberalism has to be destroyed and you loons are doing a fine job doing it.

 

[jknowgood]

Do you not see a difference? Nobody said Trump did not get more electoral college votes. No one claimed "fraud", no one said, "stolen election". What was claimed, and has actually been proven, was that Russia manipulated the results of the election through a concentrated effort of propaganda, especially in social media. The only open question, and it really isn't that open. Indictments have been handed down, pardons have been handed out. But the question remains, did the Trump campaign actively "collude" with Russian operatives.

But Trump and his minions are claiming something entirely different. The election was "stolen", it was corrupt. The system manipulated the results. Instead of an outsider manipulating the system. Look, Trump knew he was going to lose by late September. His staff knew he was going to lose. And it was at that point that he began planning this "stolen election" strategy. I knew it the moment he began discouraging people from voting my mail, early, or absentee.

Still going with the debunked Russian collusion? Lol

 

[citygator]

Yes, the Democrats cheated in the 2020 election. Liberalism has to be destroyed and you loons are doing a fine job doing it.

 

[jknowgood]

View attachment 668860

Yes the mentality I'm dealing with, from you loons.

 

[Indeependent]

Good morning, poster Indeependent.

If you will not or cannot back up your own assertion then there is little reason for you and the forum to continue this discussion.

We do not need to prove what those 111 judges did or did not do.
You...are the one who inserted your assertion into this thread.
The burden of proof is on you.
Your competition is not forum members.....it is Benjamin Ginsberg. He is credibly informing that you do not know what you are talking about.


So, cowboy up and show the forum your cards.
Your hand has been called.

In my humble opinion: Your mouth got away from your brain. No disrespect intended. But, you said something that was easily fact checked. Once made aware of your faux pas you obfuscate, cover up, re-direct.
But, mein freund, as mentioned above:

• Your hand has been called.
• Show.
• Or go.

Your choice.

Who is Ben Ginsberg and why is he testifying in the Jan. 6 hearings?

Ben Ginsberg, a conservative elections lawyer best known for his involvement in the 2000 recount of the presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, will testify June 13 before the House Jan. 6 committee.

www.pbs.org

See post 74.
Most of the judges rejected the case right off the bat.
Try reading the news everyday.
Your fonts prove nothing.